The High Court has ordered the Garda Commissioner to disclose the identity of a deceased suspect in a sexual abuse investigation, but refused to order discovery of the entire Garda file at this stage.
In a judgment delivered on 10 September 2024, Mr Justice Kennedy said Jonathan Randall had not shown that the full file was necessary to identify potential defendants, start proceedings or seek redress. He granted leave for Randall to make a further application if he still needs additional information after learning the suspect’s identity.
Randall told the court that he had been sexually abused as a four-year-old in 1979 by an unidentified priest. He made a complaint to An Garda Síochána in 2019. The resulting investigation identified a possible suspect, but the Director of Public Prosecutions decided there could be no prosecution because the suspect had died. The DPP declined Randall’s request for the suspect’s identity.
Randall sought the investigation file and the suspect’s identity through a Norwich Pharmacal application, which can require a party holding information to disclose it to help someone pursue a legal remedy. He said the material was needed to identify the wrongdoer and seek legal advice, and undertook to use it only for those purposes. The Commissioner accepted that the identity was necessary and did not oppose its disclosure, but objected to releasing the file.
Justice Kennedy said the parties agreed that the alleged wrong met the legal threshold for the application and that the information was held by the Commissioner. The dispute was whether the whole file was necessary. The judge said disclosure would be helpful, but Randall’s broad assertion did not establish that it was essential. He noted that further evidence might strengthen or weaken a case, but that a person need not know every fact before starting proceedings.
The judge did not decide whether the Commissioner’s role in a later Garda investigation meets the separate legal test requiring a respondent to be sufficiently connected to the alleged wrongdoing. He also did not decide whether disclosure of the entire file would be proportionate. He noted there was no live investigation that could be compromised and said the suspect’s identity could be disclosed proportionately on Randall’s undertaking.
The Commissioner was awarded the costs of the application, to be assessed if the parties cannot agree. Enforcement was stayed to allow Randall to bring a claim against the alleged wrongdoer or other potentially responsible parties. The Commissioner may apply to lift the stay if proceedings are not issued and pursued with reasonable expedition. The court said it could review the documents if a further disclosure application is made and the parties cannot resolve the issue.